Edit: Archive URL

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

What I think the Times analysis misses is that of the two minor candidates, Heikes (R) has more votes (2.3%) than Sullivan (I) (1.7%).

Dude, I'm sorry, did you not even read it before saying this?

They go over this in detail. They literally show what the ranks of the current ballots are and explain that the outstanding ballots heavily favor Peltola (and why).

"What I think the Times' analysis misses is that one number bigger than other number." Like are you fucking kidding me? You think they missed that? Is this a joke?

I'll answer my own question: no, you did not read this, and you're full of shit saying you "think it misses it". Either read an article you're commenting on before making sweeping assumptions about it or, alternatively, go read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either would've obviated your comment and saved me the time of spoon-feeding this basic information to you to make sure you don't misinform anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago

    did you not even read it

    The article is paywalled so it's possible they didn't read it. Here's an archive link if you want to throw this in the description so people can read the article.

    I did read it, and if what they're saying based on the 200k sample size is true, that's hilarious:

    In a surprising twist, one reason Mr. Sullivan doesn’t fare better is that more of the voters who backed the other Dan Sullivan — a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who was recruited by allies of Ms. Peltola to siphon votes from the incumbent — ranked Ms. Peltola as their second choice rather than Mr. Sullivan.

    I just hope the margin is big enough that there's no dispute about people really not waiting Trump's Dan Sullivan

  • source
  • parent